Posts by goldenhound32

Anthony Smith3 said:Maybe I shouldn't, haha...

But what can I do when I'm feeling particularly cranky? 🙂

Quote : e.g. In Bruges, which we're discussing in a separate thread... I actually knew about that one nearly six or seven months before it even hit theaters.

Frankly, it makes no difference to me whether I watch a movie—or even decide to be interested in it—right now or a year from now. When In Bruges came out, I saw it. No regrets there; I'd give it a solid 7 out of 10. 🙂

As far as The Matador is concerned, I don't particularly trust your take on it 🙂 (not that I think the film is bad, but if I never end up seeing it, I won't feel like I missed out).
On this forum, and across the internet in general, I tend to seek out people who look for the same artistic qualities in cinema that I do. It’s rare that I find myself at odds with them. To me, that seems to be the most effective way to ensure I catch a higher percentage of truly good films. So far, the strategy is holding up.

The last time I actually sat through a trailer—meaning, when watching them was a somewhat standard activity—was five years ago in a theater, or occasionally when they popped up on TV. Nowadays, if I flip through the channels and one comes on, I just close my eyes if I’m at the cinema.

The most recent trailer I even bothered to start watching was Spider-Man 3, played back on an MP4 player just to check the video quality. Even then, the film struck me as poor, though I already knew that well before the trailer even started. 🙂

Frankly, I find the entire concept of a trailer distasteful. It's a calculated attempt to feed the audience a few highlight reels just to lure them into paying for a movie that is complete garbage. Every time I encounter a comment along the lines of 'I saw a trailer online, liked it, and the next day I wasted ten bucks seeing this piece of shit movie 😠', I can't help but feel a certain sense of triumph. 😁

rustywalker42 said:I’ve been lurking through this thread about Benjamin Button, and I've noticed a significant percentage of people claiming the movie is just too long—specifically women.

Either they aren't bothered to participate in this survey, or perhaps Benjamin Button simply isn't compelling enough to justify sitting through its runtime without complaint.

Personally, I have zero patience for bad filmmaking, regardless of how short the runtime might be.

Emily Thomas3 said:Maybe he just didn't want that death to be the biggest moment in the movie, so he brought it up early to clear the way for other themes 🤷

Every viewer determines their own most significant moment. Or rather, one doesn't simply decide it—one feels it.

Emily Thomas3 said:hmm, every single trailer we’ve seen lately seems to be a biopic about the first gay politician who gets assassinated while in office... 🤷 but hey, you didn't know, you didn't know, so what's the big deal now.

Let's play devil's advocate here... suppose I actually did know. What then? Why on earth would they lead with the fact that the man was murdered if it was meant to be a surprise?😕

silentbear49 said:Why though? I mean, the whole movie is based on actual events anyway—even if it’s about a gay activist most of us never even heard of before this.

Because I had no idea the man was actually going to be murdered.

The film was decent enough.

The repetition of that opening scene at the end really grated on me. It felt entirely gratuitous, a narrative loop that served no real purpose. I can't say for certain if it was intentional, but it struck me as a tired trope; we saw similar structural echoes in films like Slumdog Millionaire and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

It’s honestly quite frustrating how they spoil the entire trajectory of Harvey Milk right from the jump. Knowing exactly how his story concludes before you've even settled into the narrative just cheapens the whole experience.

7 out of 10.

Adam Moore said:you're dead wrong. this is to Americans what the Nuremberg trials were to Europe (including Germany)—it’s specifically about those who lived through the Nixon era. the subject matter isn't unappealing at all.

Sure, it was 🙂
The question is how much interest there is now. It's sitting at a measly 10,000 votes on IMDb.

And let's be honest... we aren't even American, so it's even less compelling to us.

Adam Moore said:It’s an okay film, I suppose, but nothing more. A 6.5/10 at best. Langella was fine, Hopkins was fine, but it doesn't come anywhere close to the raw drama of the actual interviews. As for that last question... I hope it was rhetorical. 😁

I am genuinely curious—what kind of movie would this have been if you hadn't already sat through the real thing?

It isn't rhetorical. Why does a confession even matter once the verdict regarding the consequences has already been reached (which, in this specific instance, resulted in nothing)?

To me, it feels like some guy walks into a courtroom, gets convicted, the judge hands down the sentence, and then asks if he has anything to say—only for him to *then* admit to the crime he was just sentenced for.

Adam Moore said:I’ve watched bits and pieces of the actual interview. I can only hope this adaptation turns out to be halfway decent.

And? 🙂

Initially, I found myself thinking, "Surely Langella will outshine Hopkins," but as the film progresses, you realize Langella is formidable in his own right.

What struck me was how completely the movie pulled me in; before sitting down to watch it, I couldn't have cared less about the whole affair. Honestly, even now that it's over, my interest remains unchanged. How much does it truly matter if the man who broke the law eventually admits he was wrong?

8 out of 10.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Poor production, poor acting, and a poor concept (at least, from what I can recall).

I’m not quite sure what you mean regarding the production quality; if I recall correctly, the cinematography was actually quite striking.

As for the acting, my memory on that particular aspect is somewhat hazy.

But the premise itself is excellent:
"In a future world, young people are increasingly becoming addicted to an illegal (and potentially deadly) battle simulation game called Avalon. When Ash, a star player, hears of rumors that a more advanced level of the game exists somewhere, she gives up her loner ways and joins a gang of explorers. Even if she finds the gateway to the next level, will she ever be able to come back to reality?"

The film feels even more relevant today than it did when it first came out. We see massive numbers of people spending endless hours immersed in online gaming—it's become a widespread phenomenon. In some parts of the world, they've even established specialized clinics to deal with gaming addiction.

Even Zizek has delved into this specific cultural phenomenon.

Carol Brown77 said:Oh, come on. The director is Polish, so does that automatically put him in the Eastern Bloc? 😬

Heh... it doesn't matter who’s directing if you don't have the language, the cast, or even a studio in the Eastern Bloc footing the bill for the production.

Arthur Anderson49 said:The only sci-fi flick I’ve ever seen that was worse than Avalon—and believe me, I’ve been around long enough to know—was Starship Troopers 2.

But why doesn't Avalon work for you? Sure, I watched it maybe seven or eight years ago, but it stuck in my mind as a solid 6 out of 10.

@Carol Brown77/">@@Carol Brown77
Possession isn't sci-fi. And neither is anything coming out of the Eastern Bloc.🙂

Lawrence Booth2 said:Sexmission is great

I honestly couldn't sit through this; I tapped out after about 45 minutes.
The movie is called Sexmission, and frankly, it’s tedious. 😢
I found that forced sense of humor—that specific kind of heavy-handedness—completely unappealing. It reminds me of those movies where characters laugh hysterically at something that isn't actually funny; they're just laughing because the script tells them it's a joke.

Jerry Martin19 said:I think there was a list there, like, a serious list. Look closer. They're even driving cars that hadn't even been manufactured yet (back in "that" era)😁

"it feels like arguing about whether it should bother us or not is pointless.
but whether it's realistic or not—well, that's a different story. And that's why this thread exists."

Alright, let's start listing the inconsistencies. ☕

I just skimmed past that part. It’s hardly worth quoting.

Kin dza dza

Jerry Martin19 said:I don't recall them either, but here's some proof of the logic gaps and mistakes found just in the first godfather 1,2 - soprano. Source is the ultimate authority, IMDb 🙂

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/goofs

I mean, are people actually watching movies, or just hunting for errors? We all spot a little "mistake" once in a while, but obsessing over this stuff is honestly pointless. Real flaws are things like bad directing, bad acting, weak scripts, terrible characterization, or sloppy editing. Now *that* is worth talking about🙂

Besides, I barely even notice these glitches in "serious" films anymore. In other stuff—like trash movies or TV flicks—they stick out like a sore thumb and almost add to the fun vibe of those movies. This thread would be way better if we just kept it light and shared funny bloopers like:

🙂

It’s simply incomparable. There was significantly less wine in the glass than when we last saw her, and then there was that awkward three-second delay between the doorbell ringing and the door actually opening.
First, we have to address the technical oversight, and then there is the matter of what isn't.

I find myself wondering about the mindset of certain viewers: are you actually watching the films, or are you just hunting for mistakes? Don't get me wrong, we all spot a little continuity error or a technical slip-up from time to time, but obsessing over them to this degree feels utterly futile.

It seems to me that this entire debate regarding whether we actually need something or if it’s just an obstacle is becoming entirely pointless.
Whether something is actually realistic or not—well, that’s a whole different conversation entirely. But that's exactly why I felt the need to open this thread in the first place.

Anthony Smith3 said:Nah... because they're saying you shouldn't be surprised, even though it's basically impossible not to be...😉

It's like saying you shouldn't eat sweets because they make you gain weight, but still... sometimes it's just impossible to resist when, say, those cheesecake slices are that good...😁👍

Heh...

I take a look at what this movie is actually about and I can't help but think, "this is going to be total garbage." It doesn't matter if the plot involves Vikings fighting monsters; at the end of the day, it's just your run-of-the-mill action flick.
Execution matters far more than the initial concept.
As one fellow reviewer on IMDb put it regarding Outlander:
"So if you happen to like action movies and don't ask for too much depth in the story, this will provide you with a 90 minutes amusement worth the time".

That isn't quite enough for my tastes. 🙂

Anthony Smith3 said:You've got a point...you shouldn't be shocked by how our distributors act...but still...it's impossible not to be. I mean, they'll put garbage like "My Best Friend's Wedding" or "Big Stan" straight to DVD here in the USA, but they won't even give a shot to something like "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford".

Anyway, when I was writing this, if I recall correctly, the movie had only played at the Cannes Film Festival, where it mostly picked up positive reviews...and Rotten...well, Rotten is Rotten...only a few films actually do well there...but clearly the audience likes it, because a 7.1/10 on IMDb isn't bad. True, not many people have seen it yet, but if it were actually that terrible...it wouldn't even hit a 5...at least that's my take. We'll see...😁

Don't you see the inherent inconsistency in that statement?
Either you should be surprised, or you shouldn't.
My take is that you shouldn't.

My advice? Just stop watching movies altogether.👍

Sure thing. As soon as I'm dead.